Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Republican Turf

For decades Republican presidential candidates have campaigned on stick-to-it-ive-ness, likability and military toughness, and in these areas have generally had the edge on their Democratic opponents.

Think Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter (weak and indecisive) and Walter Mondale (just plain weak), and George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis (unfriendly, weak and indecisive). George W. Bush won out over Al Gore in the “who’d you rather share a beer with?” sweepstakes. The Swift-boating of John Kerry and the relentless attacks on his “flip-flopping” were classics of Republican political warfare.

But this year the Republicans have lost their seemingly natural advantages.
In the 2012 race, it’s the Republican candidate who’s been labeled a flip-flopper, and with good reason. He’s shifted positions on abortion, health care, gun control, and scores of other important issues. As Ted Kennedy said during the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race (after Mr. Romney described himself as pro-choice), “I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.”

Mitt Romney is not making headway against Mr. Obama’s likability despite the best efforts of Ann Romney and others to paint him as the warm and fuzzy guy next door (who just happens to be the privileged son of a presidential candidate, a bishop in the Mormon Church, head of the Olympics and a major player in the corporate buyout business.)

A new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News shows that Americans would rather Mr. Obama care for them if they were sick, by 49 percent to 43 percent.

Who would make a “more loyal friend”? That was Mr. Obama by 50-36. And Americans thought he was more likely to stick with them through trying times. They would rather have him visit their homes for supper (where I guess beer would be served), by 52-33.

Republicans have criticized Mr. Obama on military policy, but have not made a dent. A CNN poll from two weeks ago found that Mr. Obama has a 51-44 advantage over Mr. Romney on foreign policy and a 50-43 advantage on terrorism.

Mr. Romney can’t get any traction in part because Mr. Obama has been extremely aggressive on national security, and there’s simply not much space to his right (as I’ve written before).

Besides, Mr. Romney’s shallow on foreign policy. His big idea is to spend more, without saying on what—an indication that he and his advisors never processed the end of the Cold War, and that they don’t take fiscal conservatism seriously. He’s also pretty inept on the optical level. For the last several days, Mr. Romney and his campaign have been trying, without any visible success, to explain why Mr. Romney never mentioned American troops (75,000 of whom are now fighting in Afghanistan) at his convention. That omission has left him open to an attack from Wesley Clark, the retired general and an Obama supporter, who said Mr. Romney’s conduct is “unbecoming of someone who wants to become commander-in-chief.”

Realistically, it’s hard to find a non-flip-flopping politician. And personally, I don’t care about the likability index. I don’t want the president to be just plain folks. I want competence, experience and leadership skills. But Mr. Romney is indeed the weaker candidate on foreign affairs with his shallow, sloganeering approach to the military.

Whoever wins the election, it’s clear the Democrats have learned to play on the Republicans’ turf.